Transparency alternatives to Customer.io
Other Email marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Customer.io. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 32 that differ from Customer.io on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Customer.io has 4 gaps in what we could measure: Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Customer.io” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Customer.io | Found at Customer.io, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mailgunmailgun.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailgun | 83/100 | 3 Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 1 Subprocessor list | Compare |
| CleverReachcleverreach.comSee also Transparency alternatives to CleverReach | 48/100 | 3 No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +2 | Compare |
| ActiveCampaignactivecampaign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ActiveCampaign | 74/100 | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, Named privacy contact | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Buttondownbuttondown.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Buttondown | 61/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Mailchimpmailchimp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailchimp | 57/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 4 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| Omnisendomnisend.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Omnisend | 57/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| EmailOctopusemailoctopus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to EmailOctopus | 70/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Elastic Emailelasticemail.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Elastic Email | 43/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Postmarkpostmarkapp.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Postmark | 43/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Mailcoachmailcoach.appSee also Transparency alternatives to Mailcoach | 26/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +3 | Compare |
| Substacksubstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Substack | 22/100 | 1 Named privacy contact | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| Campaign Monitorcampaignmonitor.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Campaign Monitor | 19/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.